Using peer group work in conducting undergraduate qualitative projects
Dr Siobhan Hugh-Jones and Dr Anna Madill
Institute of Psychological Sciences
University of Leeds
December 2006
Project Funded by the Higher Education Academy Psychology Network
Departmental Teaching Enhancement Scheme
The following worksheets were developed by Siobhan Hugh-Jones and Anna Madill
(University of Leeds) as part of a project funded by the Higher Education Academy
Psychology Network Departmental Teaching Enhancement Scheme. The aim of this
project was to develop an effective means of utilising peer group work to enhance the
learning experience of final year undergraduates conducting a qualitative research project
in psychology. To do this, we piloted and evaluated peer group learning with twenty-nine
relevant undergraduate students in our department and developed and refined the
materials presented to you here.
Six worksheets have been developed according to perceived milestones in the
students’ research process and assume that students are undertaking a qualitative analysis
of interview material; (1) Research question and methodologies, (2) Interviewing
schedules and interview skills, (3) Interviewing as a method of data collection, (4)
Methods of (qualitative) data analysis, (5) Peer feedback on initial analysis, and (6) How
to evaluate qualitative research. These provide students with possible session aims and
questions to orientate and facilitate their discussions. Semester timings for each meeting
are indicated on each worksheet but these are, of course, flexible. We include also an
evaluation form for each meeting.
Feedback from our pilot participants was encouraging. They valued the
opportunity to discuss aspects of project work and meetings promoted ideas and the
sharing of knowledge. Sessions also fulfilled a need to share anxieties about conducting
the project and allowed monitoring of relative progress. It was, however, sometimes
difficult for students to adjust to lack of supervision during the group sessions and there
were some difficulties running the groups, particularly with regard to timings.
2
Independent observations of some of the groups indicated that students were
generally willing to learn from each other, primarily in relation to project management.
Although students often struggled with the openings of session, in general, they appeared
competent in negotiating the level of group discussion in order to enjoy some benefit
from them. The availability of learning materials appeared important in protecting some
students from being perceived as overly directive. Although students were willing to
discuss many aspects of their research, their contribution to the group became restricted
when discussing decisions already made with their supervisor. There was very occasional
group empowerment when faced with uncertainty, for example deciding to do more
research or to trust the group’s ability to make sense of the question on the session
handout. However, groups often conceded to uncertainty and could use it to legitimize
disengagement.
Our focus group discussion with project supervisors revealed that student
participation in peer-learning did not seem to change the nature of supervision meetings,
although a minimal reduction in demand was noted and occasional questions were
brought to supervision that had originated from group sessions. Moreover, some students
had included sections in their reports that were directly linked to issues discussed in the
group, e.g. reflexivity and evaluation criteria, and supervisors noticed that many had
acknowledged in their report the help they had received from the groups.
Building on the pilot funded by the HEA, the feedback from students and staff has
led us to make small but appropriate amendments to the worksheets. We have also begun
to cluster participating students according to supervisor hoping that this will increase the
cohesiveness of the groups. This should avoid confusing differences in reports of
3
supervisor advice within the groups and provide a supervisor check on the usefulness of
group involvement during supervision sessions with ongoing encouragement to attend.
Our advice, then, is to cluster students into groups in a such a way as to increase
their cohesiveness. As indicated with reference to focus groups, around 5-7 students per
group appears optimum. And, finally, take care to make the practical running of the
groups as easy for the students as possible. For example, one task of the first session is
electing a ‘chair’ for the group and it seems very important that one member takes overall
responsibility for such things as room bookings and communication of meeting times.
Although these worksheets have been designed for peer group learning there is no
reason for not adapting them for use as the basis of lectures, seminar, or tutorials. We
hope they are of use to you!
Siobhan Hugh-Jones and Anna Madill
4